Why I Don't Get a Charitable Deduction

When clean cut young kids come to the front door asking for donations to help the environment/cure the disease de jour/or to help elect a political candidate, I try to be polite, but I always send them away emptyhanded. Throughout most of my working career, I steadfastly resisted the constant requests for "sponsorship" walks/rides/runs - United Way Nazis - or outright contributions to a coworkers' pet projects (The chief exception is, of course, Girl Scout Cookies - which has always seemed to me to be a worthy cause.)

These refusals to donate may have been seen as the skinflintyness of a cheap bastard, but that is not the case. I do not like people taking advantage of my good will and presumed affluence as a springboard for socialized extortion to support their causes. Also, I am a skeptic who believes that such donations - however well intentioned - are simply a big waste. Some might argue that there is a "feel-good" value to giving $25 to help the starving children in Darfur, but I argue that practically none of that money is spent on food.

In fact, most of the money that is donated to ANY charity goes for overhead - Advertising, Salaries and Lunches for the executives. One exception: The Boston Globe Santa, which collects money to buy gifts for poor kids at Christmas. They promise that 100% of the donations are used to that purpose. The Globe eats the overhead costs. Good for them. These are the only charities that I will give to.

Some people are proud of their political contributions, which mostly go to pay for more attack ads and - of course - funding the campaigns to request more contributions. Or in some cases, to pay-off the gal that the candidate was having an affair with. It seems, John Edwards has emerges as the current leading poster boy for corrupt lying lawyer politicians (Bill Clinton, you are not alone!)
I recall that last year, Edwards had to take the heat for his famous $400 haircut.



This type of excess is typical of non-profit organizations, whose management is not subject to the same scrutiny as public corporations. They prey on the little old ladies from Pasadena who think their $15 is going to cure cancer, or to help a disabled veteran when it is actually going to be dumped into the marketing kitty to fund even more heartfelt requests for donations via junk mail, or worse to pay off the bimbo on the side.


Most of your charity walks and rides are just phony events which have been cleverly designed to fool good-hearted people. Fiendishly clever, the organizers realize that most people want to feel good, so they recruit walkers/runners/riders to go out and solicit sponsorships from their friends and relatives. They count on the fact that many of the participants have a relative or friend who was afflicted by the disease. They will become evangelists.

So, when they come to you in the office asking for a small contribution, you would have to be a hard hearted asshole to say, "You are a dupe. None of this money will go into research; it goes to advertising and executive salaries." Much easier to just give them $20.



Take the 3 day Avon walk for breast cancer as an example. The participants go around to their office colleagues and solicit donations. Most of them must personally invest several hundred dollars for the Tent, food and gear to make them comfortable for two overnights. The event itself is meaningless, except for the participants, who get a great rush from the camaraderie and fun of the 3 day camping trip. What does this have to do with breast cancer? Nothing. Most of the money goes to the organizers of the event. If the participants would just take their tent and gear money and donate it to someone who has breast cancer, the money might just help someone.


As I say, I am a skeptic. I can't prove it but I will bet you that if you look into it you will find that less than ten percent and certainly no more than 30% of donated money actually finds its way to fund the real purpose of the donation, which is research. Prove me wrong.